The David Fincher Shuffle

Am I the only person who find his choice-making annoying? He basically attaches his name to lots of projects, which then get some press. He develops them for a brief time, but never commits. Even when it seems like he's going to do something he walks away to work on something else. Kind of makes him a bit of a whore. The best way to make money in Hollywood is to develop projects that you know you're never going to make...

"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

Am I the only person who find his choice-making annoying? He basically attaches his name to lots of projects, which then get some press. He develops them for a brief time, but never commits. Even when it seems like he's going to do something he walks away to work on something else. Kind of makes him a bit of a whore. The best way to make money in Hollywood is to develop projects that you know you're never going to make...

Yeah, it's really unbelievable how much projects he began to develop - "Mission: Impossible 3", "Redenzvous with Rama", "Chemical Pink", "They Fought Alone", "Stay", "Lords of Dogtown" and now "The Lookout". We'll see if he'll make that one.

Am I the only person who find his choice-making annoying? He basically attaches his name to lots of projects, which then get some press. He develops them for a brief time, but never commits. Even when it seems like he's going to do something he walks away to work on something else. Kind of makes him a bit of a whore. The best way to make money in Hollywood is to develop projects that you know you're never going to make...

If it gets you to make movies, why not? Muty, your hero The 'Berg did it with Bingo Long, he kept that afloat in order to set up Close Encounters.

Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary: the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary: the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

Ah, Finch is using the old thing Marty always talks about: "one for the studio, one for you". I dunno if I could do that...

Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary: the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

well i luved the game and panic room, but this argument has been done to death, so let's not go there.

as for this shuffle thing, one must realize how difficult it is to get a movie going. mac and gb and others could shed more light on it than i could, but isn't the fact that he is looking diligently for the right project to pursue a good thing?

There are hundreds of reasons why a director attaches themselves to a project, then bails. Roger Avary pretty much said on his website that Fincher walked from Dogtown b/c he wouldn't get to re-build the whole pier for the surfing sequences early on. Sure, it would have been ridiculously expensive (and probably dangerous), but it's a reason. Problems can pop up at any turn. At least Fincher isn't rushing to make every project that comes his way, depsite problems or whatnot. We can argue all day about the merits/problems of each flick he's done, but one thing's for sure: the man doesn't rush anything and plans shit out.